from the customers-rule dept

It's been a relatively tough road for Microsoft's Xbox One, even as it's early in the console's life. You should recall that the console was initially designed to require some degree of online connectivity to work; a plan that was subsequently walked back after consumers revolted. It was the same for proposed limitations on used games, which caused similar outrage. The console was also supposed to not be fully operational without the bundled Kinect engaged, but that plan was also scrapped because customers hated the idea. Left in place were consumers questioning why they had to pay for the Kinect device at all, given the paltry sum of games that actually utilized it.

Well, the trend continues, now that Microsoft has announced in an absolutely tone-deaf blog post that there will now be an Xbox One offering that comes sans Kinect. The post, laughably, is entitled "Delivering More Choices for Fans."

Today, we're excited to share more ways your feedback is impacting the products we build. First, beginning on June 9th, in all markets where Xbox One is sold, we will offer Xbox One starting at $399*. This is a new console option that does not include Kinect. For $399, our new Xbox One offering will continue to deliver access to the best blockbuster games like "Titanfall," "Call of Duty: Ghosts," "Forza Motorsport 5," "Dead Rising 3," and the upcoming "Watch Dogs," "Destiny" and "Sunset Overdrive." You will also be able to access popular entertainment apps, such as Twitch, YouTube, and Netflix, as well as watch live TV and use OneGuide. Finally, you will continue to be able to use many of the unique features of Xbox One including the ability to get game invites while you watch TV, switch between games and entertainment apps, enjoy Twitch broadcasts, and upload your favorite gaming moments. Next, we're bringing more value to Xbox Live Gold members and offering all Xbox 360 and Xbox One owners access to entertainment apps whether or not you have an Xbox Live Gold membership.

Let's deal with these in order. The demand for a console that comes without the bundled Kinect device has been around since, oh I don't know, before the console was even released. To pretend that Microsoft is now benevolently bending to the will of consumers makes it sound like they haven't been aware of the demand until recently. That's not true. They're actually bending to consumer will of another form, the resulting trouncing of their console by Sony's Playstation, which has a better record (for this generation, at least) of actually delivering to consumers what they want. Relatively speaking, they're getting their asses kicked, and now they're scrambling to try to appease potential customers.

As for Microsoft finally releasing their entertainment apps to folks who aren't paying for the Xbox Live Gold membership, this isn't so much Microsoft giving their customers something for free as it is finally not requiring them to pay for the same thing twice. For instance, previously, if you had a Netflix account, you had to pay for that account and an Xbox Live Gold membership in order to use Netflix on your console. That's insane. Correcting insanity isn't something to be lauded.

from the cfaa-is-broken dept

There have been a bunch of stories going around about how 5-year-old Kristoffer Von Hassel figured out a way to hack the Xbox Live password system. Kristoffer's parents noticed that their son was logging into his father's account and playing games he wasn't supposed to be playing. They asked him how he was doing it and he showed them:

Just after Christmas, Kristoffer's parents noticed he was logging into his father's Xbox Live account and playing games he wasn't supposed to be.

“I got nervous. I thought he was going to find out,” said Kristoffer.

In video shot soon after, his father, Robert Davies, is heard asking Kristoffer how he was doing it.

A suddenly excited Kristoffer showed Dad that when he typed in a wrong password for his father’s account, it clicked to a password verification screen. By typing in space keys, then hitting enter, Kristoffer was able to get in through a back door.

Kristoffer's father, Robert Davies, works in computer security (which, frankly, makes me a little skeptical that Kristoffer really made this discovery), and submitted the bug to Microsoft, who not only quickly fixed it, but also listed Kristoffer on their March "acknowledgements" for security researchers who helped them find bugs and vulnerabilities.

Of course, the flip side to this story is how we've seen the CFAA used in the past to go after people discovering similar flaws. Compare the story of Kristoffer to the story of Andrew "weev" Auernheimer. Kristoffer clearly exceeded authorized access to the Xbox Live system in order to obtain something of value (perhaps he gets off because the "something" is not worth more than $5,000, but still...). Of course, weev is an obnoxious internet troll, and Kristoffer is a cute 5-year-old. I guess that's what's meant by "prosecutorial discretion."

from the hot-hot-hot dept

Look, for all you critics out there, I admit it: I love video games. They're my primary source of entertainment, since I long ago discarded regular television viewing, most music, and most movies. My entertainment quota is filled by literature and video games. But even my love for video games pales in comparison to this smitten hero from Kansas, who bravely walked out of his burning home with his most prized possession in tow: his Xbox.

“Hold onto what matters most” are words of wisdom that most people strive to live by, perhaps none more so than an Olathe, Kansas man who on Friday morning risked a fiery death by charging into his burning house to save a beloved Xbox. (The exact model is unknown.) Thankfully, both console and human survived, the latter suffering from smoke inhalation.

I carry your controller with me, I carry it in my heart. I am never without it, anywhere I go you go, my dear console, and whatever is done by only me is your doing, my console. I fear no fate, for your games are my fate, and I want no world, for my Xbox is my true world, and it's you, whatever Grand Theft Auto has always meant, and whatever a Mortal Kombat will always sing is you.

Or, you know, something like that...is what I imagine this guy wrote to his inanimate gaming console. Whatever, my point is this: you can love your console, love your games, and love the experience of playing them. But there must be something else in the place you call home that you'd rather save than the saves on your Xbox. Especially if there's even the slightest chance that same Xbox is the one trying to kill you with the fire of Doom-driven hell-demons.

In a strange twist, the disaster was blamed on an electrical junction box, which makes us wonder if the Xbox wasn’t partly to blame. Was it a suicidal act, or simple betrayal? Difficult to say, as is the matter of where exactly he plans to plug the device in now.

In the afterlife, dear reader, if fate has bothered to read its Shakespeare, I fear this gentleman will meet no Juliet more fair then the electronic daughter of Bill Gates.

from the and-there-goes-your-credibility dept

We've discussed in the past how important YouTube is to gaming companies, focusing mainly on not getting over-aggressive in protecting intellectual property. Our general suggestions had been for gaming companies to invest in supporting YouTubers and building good relationships with those who promote their works.

It began with a thread on NeoGAF that included text from an email Machinima was sending out to their partners which offered bonus CPM (cost per thousand views, the standard way advertising is priced) payments on videos covering Microsoft's new console. Their requirements for this "promotion" in the email were already problematic, including gameplay footage from an Xbox One game, a mention of playing the game on the Xbox One console in the video, and a vague reference to following the "guidelines listed in the assignment." Just in those lines, most journalists would find deal-killers. While the line on whether or not YouTube video makers covering games like this being journalists may be a bit blurry, there's little doubt that thousands of YouTubers look to these folks for help on their purchasing decisions. In other words, they're fame rests squarely on their reputations for honest reviews. Minus those reputations, these people have no following.

Now here's where we enter really sketchy territory: Ars Technica tracked down a copy of Machinima's contract for the promotion, and there's one line that stands out: "You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video." What's more, these YouTubers can't even be transparent about this arrangement, according to the contract:

"You agree to keep confidential at all times all matters relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Promotional Requirements, and the CPM Compensation, listed above. You understand that You may not post a copy of this Agreement or any terms thereof online or share them with any third party (other than a legal or financial representative). You agree that You have read the Nondisclosure Agreement (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A") and You understand and agree to all of terms of the Nondisclosure Agreement, which is incorporated as part of this Agreement."

Hear that sound? That's the sound of this entire promotion exploding with enough payload-force to also take out both the guilty and innocent Machinima video-producers. What this does is put everyone under suspicion. Given what we said about the importance of reputations above, this could be the meteor that destroys Machinima's world.

And it isn't just them. Even if you're the sort to withhold judgement on Microsoft for being linked to all this (and a lonely sort it must be), a lack of a direct link doesn't really matter. Microsoft will be under suspicion as well, assumed to have a paid arrangement for all this. That will not only make everyone suspicious of Machinima coverage of the Xbox One, but it will make folks wonder what other arrangements Microsoft may have made with other reviewers and video-producers. Now nobody will be trusted for an honest review. Oh and this doesn't even touch on the fact that this practice (and the agreement) almost certainly violates the FTC's disclosure rules concerning promoting products. In other words, not only could this kill some reputations, but it might also get some people into some fairly serious legal hot water.

And all because someone wanted to sneak in some paid positive coverage, which in the end will torpedo the possibility of any positive coverage. That's not how you embrace the internet, folks...

The clash turns to cognitive disconnect when you take into account the number of foul-mouthed protagonists of popular M-rated games. Microsoft apparently has no problem with the actual gameplay consisting mainly of gunplay and f-bombs, but its customer base had better not be adding in any colorful verbal explosions of their own.

Microsoft's sliding ban scale still allows most swearing players to access other areas of its online offerings, but temporary-to-complete bans of all services are still an option for those who can't keep a civil tongue in their headset.

In a video that's both amazing and a little creepy, one gamer playing NBA 2K14 shows how he was given a technical foul after the Kinect heard him curse. In an actual NBA game, referees can hand out technicals if players swear excessively, and it looks like the same happens in NBA 2K14.

Here's the video. (SFW? Well, it obviously contains swearing…)

And it's not just basketball. Players of Unamerican Football are being served with sternly-worded notices from their club's board of directors.

These same "features" were noted on the PS4 versions, which means it was a developer decision rather than a Microsoft "exclusive." Both games do offer the option to toggle off the potty mouth penalties, thus allowing gamers to play them as God intended when He/She/It gave them expansive four-letter-dependent vocabularies.

Now, while Microsoft has been dealing with degenerate vernacular, Sony has taken a decidedly hands-off approach to user-generated content. Its system also utilizes an (optional) camera and mic. PS4 users are (well, were) able to stream video live thanks to Sony's partnership with Twitch and its pre-loaded alternate-reality game, The Playroom.

The Playroom gives PS4 users a squad of tiny digital "robots" to interact with. And interact they have, often bypassing the digital playmates completely in favor of interacting with other players.

Other bizarre and disturbing behavior has also been noted. A user tormented a young child by pretending he was lurking outside his house. The hosts of "The Spartan Show," a call-in show that swiftly gained a following on Twitch, was besieged by trolls who taunted the hosts and hit them with a barrage of cruel questions.

Twitch has now banned streams from Sony's "Playroom." It says it will consider reconnecting the two once PS4 users "become more familiar with the games-only focus of Twitch content." In other words, you can have your stuff back when you've shown me you've matured.

So, did Microsoft make the right move by using a version of the "broken windows theory" (ban small-time swearing and the larger problems vanish)? Or is its policy simply unreasonable consider the number of M-rated titles it supports? Or did Sony just screw up by assuming its customers would create nothing but beauty and kindness (and unit-moving videos) when given access to live-streaming?

The only way you learn is by trying. Sony erred on side of the freedom while Microsoft erred on the side of caution. Points will be scored by Microsoft simply because its users have yet to upload rapey videos. Treating the average gamer (still hovering around age 30 despite the influx of younger gamers using tablets and mobile devices) like a child will only get you so far. Any platform will be misused by a certain subset of humanity --that's a given -- but that's no reason to overreact far in advance of potential issues.

from the really,-really-stupid dept

With all the recent coverage of how Microsoft handled the Xbox One release, in which it had originally planned on limiting used games use and requiring an internet connection to function, before subsequently walking all that back amid the understandable outcry, you may have been under the impression that Microsoft learned its lesson. Perhaps you thought that they would no longer go about product releases in a locked-up, protectionist fashion.

Well, you'd be wrong, of course. Recent reports indicate that Microsoft is reversing the way they handled tinkering capabilities on their Kinect device for their new console, locking the device up this go around.

Ars Technica reports that "the new generation Kinect that comes packaged with every Xbox One console has a proprietary connector that cannot be plugged directly into a PC and that Microsoft is not planning to release an adapter to allow such cross-platform use."

Even if developers want to hack the sensor and use it, Microsoft won't like it. The company told Ars that Kinect for Xbox One "is not licensed for commercial use, supported, or under warranty when used on any other platform, including Windows."

This is a direct reversal of how they handled the Kinect for the Xbox 360, for which they encouraged developers to hack it and use it in ways Microsoft hadn't imagined themselves. This led to entire communities devoted to discovering new and interesting ways to use the device, not to mention a great deal of free R&D Microsoft could build upon for themselves.

But all that will be gone with the latest iteration. Unlike the exceptionally useful Xbox 360 controller, you can't even use the Microsoft Kinect with a Microsoft operating system. So thanks, Microsoft, for proving that hubris exists on a corporate level.

from the customers-win dept

So, remember when the Xbox One release confused the hell out of everyone and then Microsoft confirmed a bunch of hated, needless restrictions on used games and internet connection requirements? Then there was that whole thing at E3 where the crux of Sony's presentation was, "Hey, at least we're not Microsoft?" The backlash, as you can imagine was immensely fierce, with pissed off gamers who know inherently how important the used game market is and how stupid and insulting online requirements are.

Well, Microsoft apparently now knows it too, as they have done a serious about-face on nearly every single one of these plans. Xbox chief Don Mattrick stated on the Xbox blog:

"An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games – After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.

Trade-in, lend, resell, gift, and rent disc based games just like you do today – There will be no limitations to using and sharing games, it will work just as it does today on Xbox 360."

So, all's well that ends well, right? Fans pushed back and Microsoft listened. Well, perhaps not. When you consider that the chief reason for the backlash was the obvious nature of restrictiveness and money-grabbing in Microsoft's plans, I expect gamers to not be assuaged by those plans being walked back in the aftermath. The company has made it quite clear what they think of their customers and where their priorities lie. Many jilted people won't be fooled by this new conciliatory tone.

There is a lesson to be learned here about how a company should treat its customers. Customers meaning the gamers, not the game publishers Microsoft seemed so focused on. I don't believe they have wiped the chalkboard clean without stain with this announcement.

from the on-the-cross-of-commerce dept

Gears of War designer Cliff Bleszinski has weighed in on the subject of used games in light of the Xbox One's antipathy towards them. (Of course, much of this has been walked back in recent days -- Microsoft has both taken a step backwards and kicked the can down the road, stating it won't be charging a fee for used games, but third parties are more than welcome to do exactly that. There are still a number of limitations that will make reselling Xbox One games unpalatable, if not close to impossible.)

"You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing. The numbers do NOT work people," he said.

"The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs. Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs."

"Newsflash. This is why you're seeing free to play and microtransactions everywhere. The disc based day one $60 model is crumbling.

"Those of you telling me 'then just lower game budgets' do understand how silly you sound, right?" said Bleszinski.

To paraphrase Mayor Quimby, I appreciate your passion on behalf of your medium, but I'm afraid you've got this all wrong.

If the current business model is unsustainable, why is that the consumer's fault? More specifically, why are customers being pushed into giving up their "first sale" rights, along with being asked to plug the holes in the leaky business model with wads of hard-earned cash?

On top of this imposition is the assumption the current model is the only model [$200m movie, anyone?] and that mankind greatly benefits from "thousands of developers" crafting AAA titles. This is completely backward. The industry exists because of its customers, not despite them. AAA studios are not benevolent deities. They're companies that exist because there's a market for their products. If this market dies, so do they. If the prices are too high, customers buy elsewhere. Or not at all.

What really infuriates me about the used game debate is that, when people bring up the stratospheric development and marketing costs, it's treated as though they are noble endeavors, too sacred to be compromised. Rather than ask the question, "Do games need to be this expensive to make?" the question instead becomes, "How can we squeeze more money to keep making very expensive games?"

In a good business, the answer to something being too expensive to produce would be to, y'know,make it fucking cheaper to produce. Videogame consoles do this over time -- parts become less costly to manufacture, more efficient to put together. You'll find, with some of the most successful videogames on the market, the same is also very true. It's just that nobody will admit it.

Sterling points out that Call of Duty has been working off the same engine for years, with two studios alternating releases. Every year, a new Call of Duty game, one that grabs huge market share and makes a huge profit, thanks to the developers' willingness to build from its proprietary starting point. Why tear everything down and start from scratch? Why push to be the "visual" leader when it's clear a majority of customers aren't solely interested in purchasing bleeding edge software?

Likewise with the PC market. It's the true graphics leader, often far ahead of current consoles, and yet the biggest selling titles aren't industry showpieces. Sterling points to Minecraft, Terraria and Valve's old-as-hell-but-still-effective Source engine. Smaller studios are taking advantage of available technology to make beautiful games on a budget (The Witcher, Metro: Last Light). [On a personal note, while I do enjoy AAA eye candy now and then, I value the gameplay that much more. CIP: I've put over 192 hours into Just Cause 2, a game released three years ago whose gameplay still holds up to this day. That and Hotline: Miami, no one's idea of AAA beauty.]

But according to Bleszinski, the public doesn't want all of that stuff listed above. It only wants the best of the best, crafted by a team of thousands and sold in various deluxe packages at $60-$100 a pop, possibly with a helping of day one DLC on the side. And because Bleszinski believes this, he feels the public must be made to pay for the excesses of an industry. Back to Sterling for a rebuttal.

If so-called "AAA" games and the used market actually are incompatible, then I say that's a good friggin' thing. Anything to dispossesses publishers of the notion that they need to keep dumping truckloads of cash into games to the point where they need to sell more copies than the laws of reality allow...

It's not our fault games have gotten so expensive, and I resent the implication that it is. The fact this industry seems utterly fucking incapable of taking some damn responsibility for itself continues to disgust me, and I refuse to shoulder the blame for companies that cannot demonstrate one iota of self-reflection. If something you're doing is not working, change what you're doing! Stop trying to bend and break the world around you to try and manufacture an environment where your failed tactics could achieve some perverse form of success.

It's beginning to look like a few members of the industry have been cribbing pages from the disastrous playbook of the recording industry. Raise prices. Blame customers. Bend the world to your business model. Is it only a matter of time before the gaming industry begins lobbying Congress to shut down secondhand sales?

Oh, and if the above twitrant weren't galling enough, Cliff B. throws in a little something for those who find the online requirements of the Crossbone to be dealbreaker.

"If you can afford high speed internet and you can't get it where you live direct your rage at who is responsible for pipe blocking you," he said.

Really? Maybe I'll direct my rage at the entitled jackass who's supporting a company's decision to effectively limit its own market simply because it can't live without some sort of DRM infection. And what if you can't afford high speed internet? Well, you must be one of those people who live in the area marked "Whogivesashitland" in Cliffy's mental map. And trust me, plenty of rage has been directed at the "pipe blockers," but they care even less about their customer base than the area of the gaming industry Bleszinski represents.

Those interested in gutting the resale market to protect their margins are turning potential customers into enemies. If you can't adapt, you can't succeed. These moves being made by Microsoft (and supported by industry mouthpieces) are nothing more than attempts to subsidize an unsustainable business model by forcibly extracting the maximum toll from as many transactions as possible. The industry is not a necessity or a public good. If it's going to make the changes it needs to survive, it needs to give up this delusion.

from the in-Soviet-Russia,-the-dept-is-from-you dept

Usually when software is cracked, it's to remove DRM or other limitations that were inserted to prevent unauthorized reproduction and distribution. Once that's complete, the unauthorized reproduction and distribution begins, with these illicit copies occasionally ending up in the hands of paying customers who just want the software they paid money for to work correctly. (Funny how that works/doesn't work.)

Ska Studios released their excellent hack-’n'-slash sequel, The Dishwasher: Vampire Smile, back in 2011, exclusively on the Xbox 360. This was the follow-up to the original The Dishwasher game that won the Dream.Build.Play contest back in 2007, which scored the studio $10,000 and an Xbox Live Arcade publishing contract. So when creating the sequel, Ska and Microsoft were already set up to carry on the exclusive publishing contract on XBLA, which meant that the game never saw a release on any other platforms. But that hasn’t sat well with some people, and now a PC port has been managed outside of any official parties.

Barbarus uploaded his unofficial port to torrent site rustorka.net, but the traffic jump took it down. He has since posted it at Yandex as well. The unofficial port is in (unofficial) beta, but is obviously very popular with PC users (or Xbox users who also want to play the game on their PCs). It also has triggered a bit of backlash in support James Silva, one of the game's developers. Barbarus posted this in response.

The ethics of publication

The view was expressed that, with respect to the authors, it is not very nice to publish the game on the PC. I have to argue that the part of the authors are not very nice to publish the game exclusively for the Xbox 360, making it impossible for PC gamers to play such a great game.

About Piracy

Piracy – yes, that is bad. On the other hand, we did not steal the game for the Xbox 360; we released it for the PC port. Given that the developers ignored the PC platform, about any loss of profit for them is not out of the question. After all, if they wanted to earn money, then the game would be issued on all available platforms. If the game came out on PC officially, then this thread would not exist.

Barbarus' arguments defending his actions are not completely without merit. It can be argued that Ska Studios does lose money from this unofficial PC version (diverting Xbox users who now have a way to play the game without purchasing it through the Xbox Live Arcade), but then again, no PC version exists, so any amount of money lost lies in the realm of the theoretical.

On the other hand, James Silva didn't ignore the PC market. The terms of his contract with Microsoft made it exclusively an Xbox title. Again, one can argue against the limitations of the deal or second-guess Silva's wisdom in agreeing to these restrictions, but that doesn't do much to address the issue at hand: how much does Barbarus' port harm Silva and Ska Studios?

Barbarus goes so far as to claim his liberation of Silva's game from the confines of the Xbox was a "restoration of justice" rather than piracy. This it clearly isn't. But it really isn't piracy either, at least not in the normally accepted sense of the word. It's somewhere in between, traveling in the gray area usually populated by emulators and fan translations. The original has been altered, made to do things it normally doesn't (run on other operating systems, speak English) and released to the public.

James Silva's response is understandably conflicted.

“I guess you could say my reaction is mixed. I’m flattered that there’s this much interest in Vampire Smile on PC. I’m not mad about the crack itself; in fact, I’m actually pretty impressed. But I’m bewildered by the cracker’s attempt to justify the morality of it. He assumes a lot about why Vampire Smile’s not on PC yet, and he could have cleared up a lot of those assumptions by just emailing me. I get that piracy is a service problem, but that’s a consequence, not a justification.”

If there was a potential PC market for Silva's game, Barbarus has beaten him to market (so to speak) with his own game. Barbarus, for his part, has continued to defend his actions, pointing out that his port is far from perfect...

The PC version has a lot of limitations. Cooperative gameplay is unavailable, network gameplay is unavailable, achievments is unavailable...

Sorry the game's not on PC in any official capacity yet! The main reason it's not is because even though the game was developed on a PC, releasing on PC and working out all of the input, display sizes, graphics options involved is a lot of work (and a lot more work than it sounds like!). I know Dean was working on Dust PC for at least a few months before it was even announced (sorry if I've said too much, Dean!), and for us, when Vampire Smile shipped, we were already full speed on Charlie Murder. Once Charlie ships, I'd like to try working on a Vampire Smile PC port, but I'd really like to give it a Director's cut treatment--rework some areas, add environmental hazards and new enemies, etc., so we wouldn't really be missing out if there's a cracked torrent with broken shaders floating around somewhere.

And honestly, out of all the possible responses, Silva's chosen the best one. Going legal is prohibitively expensive and tends to turn a certain amount of public opinion against you, no matter how right you are. If an unofficial, cracked port exists, it's not going to be as polished as the original. This weird little saga only adds to the reasons for fans to support Silva when the official PC hits and his graceful handling of this screwed up situation should land Ska Games even more supporters.

from the sorry-i-wasn't-paying-attention dept

You may recall the concern some have raised over Smart TVs, those internet connected glowing boxes with cameras ripe for exploits that would allow hackers to watch you watch TV. Supposedly less nefarious were concerns over technology that would allow those same Smart TVs to recognize when you had left the room or were looking away, subsequently dimming the screen to conserve energy. Whether or not either is a concern rising to the levels of epidemic privacy invasion, one thing that is clear is that the general public is a bit dubious about being monitored within their own living rooms.

The patent, snappily titled "Awards and achievements across TV ecosystem", describes camera sensors monitoring the eye movements and heartbeats of TV viewers. Which means a console will know if you're in the room when an ad break is on, or if you've popped out to make tea. It'll also be able to tell whether you're actually watching the ad or if you're engrossed in the latest issue of Heat magazine. And don't even think about gaming the system by watching telly with the lights off: the XBox would be able to monitor you even in the dark.

Every move you make, every breath you take, the Xbox would be watching you – but also rewarding you. The patent suggests that sitting through commercial breaks would rack you up points to buy both virtual and physical awards. The thinking behind this being that people today need to be bribed in order to sit still and watch a commercial. As the patent application explains: "With the proliferation of digital video recording devices, advertisers are finding it increasingly difficult to introduce their advertisements to viewers."

While the above can be slightly misleading in that this is a patent application, not a granted patent, the response to it is the same. Fun, right? Here's the problem. I am aware that, at some level, everything about video games is reward-based. The obvious Xbox achievements are in place and people ostensibly seek them out, though I have yet to attain any modicum of understanding as to why people do this. Less obvious is the concept of gaming in general. Get to the next level. See that next cut-scene. Advance the plot. Unlock the new weapon, the new armor, or the new ability to shoot a bad guy directly in the balls. These are things that are important to gamers. It might therefore seem natural to build a rewards-based system for advertising as well within this audience.

Except advertisements are different, aren't they? If we're skipping ads, it's because they're an annoyance. Whereas stopping the bad guy, winning the World Series, or uncovering a mystery are all integral to the playing of whatever game we're enjoying, advertisements are, by definition, a break from what we're actually interested in doing. In fact, the label of "achievement" itself relating to watching advertising reeks of a gross misnomer. Granted, being able to stomach a minute's worth of Miss Cleo advertising may seem like a challenge, but it isn't an achievement in the same way.

More importantly, as the article notes, getting people to watch ads isn't a problem solved by some kind of Pavlovian reward system. It's solved by having creative, interesting, and entertaining ads.

The proliferation of digital video recording devices is something of a red herring when it comes to ad-viewing. After all, people aren't forced to skip the ads when they watch a time-shifted show; rather, they're free to watch them over and over again if they like. Just, err, most people don't like. Research conducted by Deloitte in 2010 found that 90% of TV viewers always skip through the adverts on their DVR. But the answer to stopping this behaviour doesn't lie in sophisticated motion-detecting technology, it lies in making ads that people actually want to watch. The biggest threat to advertising isn't technology like Sky+; the biggest threat to advertising is bad advertising.

Because advertising is content and content is advertising. And these invalidating arguments are made without even bothering to touch upon the public's reaction to being watched through the all-seeing eye in Microsoft's device. In a world where authors like Rand and Orwell are well-read, I expect a line to be drawn between cameras in the public square and cameras within our own walls. That this would be done to solve a problem better solved through smarter means is a fact I hope won't be lost on anyone.